#1 of 39:
George Washington (1st president)
1789-1797
Federalist
It was a close call on whether to put Lincoln or Washington at #1, but I asked myself this question: could anybody else have accomplished what he accomplished? While Lincoln was a rare individual indeed, George Washington was the only man who could do what needed to be done in his time. Yes, Lincoln saved the Union (and ended slavery), but there probably would not have been a Union to save by the 1860's if we didn't have Washington.
George Washington is difficult to humanize. He didn't wear his foibles on his sleeve like a John Adams, Alexander Hamilton or even Thomas Jefferson. Everything he left us in writing was self-consciously composed with posterity in mind. What was he really like in his off hours? We will never know. He was always playing the American Zeus, even when he claimed to just be a "simple" farmer (when in fact he was one of the wealthiest men from the wealthiest state, Virginia). Even the great Abraham Lincoln has had time periods where historians have dug up the dirt, but never Washington. To this day he remains unblemished in our history and memory. Washington should be honored not only for what he did, but also for what he did not do. Much like how Miles Davis is great in part for his silences, so was Washington.
What was so great about Washington? As a general, he lost more battles than he won. When he presided over the Constitutional Convention, he offered no ideas or substantive comments. In fact, most accounts are that he hardly uttered a word as our Founding Fathers hammered out the Constitution. His administration was filled with men more visionary and brilliant than he. Jefferson gave Washington the faint praise of "his mind was slow in operation, being little aided by invention or imagination, but sure in conclusion."
The place to start with Washington is his unshakeable moral character. That is really the key. As an infant country, and despite the fact that we had just fought a war to throw off the yoke of monarchical rule, the people yearned for strong, patriarchal leadership. A Republic of this sort was uncharted waters, and they wanted a sure captain to at least guide them out of the harbor. George Washington was the only man in America universally respected by the people and without enemies, as he had led the colonists to independence. He was above faction. Virtually drafted by the people to be their first president under the new Constitution, a reluctant Washington was the only president to receive a unanimous election in the electoral college (in 1789.) It must be remembered that a democratic-republic was a new type of government that was expected to fail. The vast majority of the rest of the civilized world lived under authoritarian rule of some sort. Washington was popular enough (and many wanted him to) to make himself King George I of America. But he did not. He instead surrendered his sword to Congress and resigned his position as General of the United States Army before he took office as Chief Executive.
There was no precedent to follow. He was the first so he set the precedents. He decided to only serve for two terms, when he could have easily been re-elected for the rest of his life. He fulfilled the peoples' need for patriarchal leadership by insisting on formality and royal iconography. But he balanced that with republican (small "r") values.
ABOVE: This is the artwork on the ceiling of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. It is called "The Apotheosis of Washington," where George Washington is depicted taking his place amongst the gods (remarkable in this nation supposedly founded on Judeo-Christian principles). Washington was indeed viewed as more than a mortal man, and it was essential that he be the first president of the new nation. (Click the picture for a closer look).
The United States was far from a long term prospect in the early days after the Revolution. In many ways, winning independence from Britain was the easy part. Now what? He was the only man with the stature to keep this thing from falling apart. And he knew it. Historian Gordon Wood has pointed out that in the early days Washington's birthday was a bigger celebration than the 4th of July, and he allowed this cult of personality to flourish in the early days to take the place of an absent patriotism. But one of the things that separates him from a Stalin or Castro is that he allowed it to take root only for a short time when necessary, and then walked away from it. That is remarkable. He personally toured the young country several times to give the people a direct connection to their federal government (vs. their state governments, which they were often more loyal to.) One of the last things he did before leaving office was to personally help design the new capital city that would bear his name.
He had help, of course. George Washington's administration is the most impressive group of men that a president has ever had to serve under him. Hard to go wrong with Alexander Hamilton as your Secretary of the Treasury, Thomas Jefferson as your Secretary of State and John Adams as your vice-president. Washington recognized that each of these men were more brilliant, and he leaned heavily on their advice. But the buck always stopped with Washington. He would consider their counsel (often asking for memos) and then make his decision. Washington's administration was full of intrigue and vehement disagreement. Hamilton and Adams hated each other, Adams and Jefferson distrusted each other, and the rift between Jefferson and Hamilton was the beginning of political parties in America. During Washington's second administration, the first two political parties formed within his very own cabinet with what started as a personal feud between Jefferson and Hamilton! The administration would have fallen apart had it not been for Washington himself keeping these men in check. A lesser man would not have been able to reign in the likes of Jefferson and Hamilton. James Monroe simply said that "[Washington's] influence carried this government." Jefferson said that "the moderation and virtue of [Washington] probably prevented this revolution from being closed."
ABOVE: An All-Star Cabinet (L-R): Washington, Secretary of War Henry Knox, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. Hamilton is appropriately in the center and standing, as he dominated Washington's administration.
What did he actually do as president? Keeping this infant nation from falling apart was the primary thing, but he did have other accomplishments during his administration as well. He allowed Hamilton to establish the Bank of the United States in the face of vocal opposition from Jefferson when we needed financial stability. He supported the unpopular Jay's Treaty with Britain that helped us avoid a war that we probably would not have survived. He was an early supporter of internal improvements. He was involved with designing Washington D.C. (D.C.'s location was the result of a backroom compromise deal between Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson secured the capital near Virginia and he in turn did not oppose Hamilton's wish for the federal government to assume state debts).
Washington may have surrendered his sword, but he was always a military man at heart. During the infamous Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania (where backwoods farmers instigated a tax revolt and refused to pay taxes on whiskey), Washington personally led the military into Pennsylvania to put down the revolt. Once Washington showed up on his horse, the rebellion immediately ended. That was the first and last time that the commander-in-chief actually led the military on the battlefield. We have not had a tax revolt since.
ABOVE: Washington arrives to personally squash the Whiskey Rebellion
His famous Farewell Address both set policy for the next 100 years (he warned of entangling alliances and many interpreted his message, although it is not entirely clear, as one of isolationism) and was prescient of future problems, warning against extreme partisanship and stressing the importance of preserving the Union. Historian Gordon Wood states that "Although Washington had aristocratic predilections and never meant to 'popularize' politics, he nonetheless performed a crucial role in creating that democracy. He was an extraordinary man who made it possible for ordinary men to rule."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Congrats on finishing the list, Dez. An impressive project from start to finish. Informative, opinionated, and fun. What will you do for your next act??
PS: Seeing as how you're a history teacher in Texas, I would be very interested in a post about the recent textbook issues down there...
To be honest, I was a little surprised that Washington was your #1, but I have to admit you did a great job explaining your rationale for that pick. It's hard to argue against it.
This truly was a great, fun, though often incorrect list! :)
Thanks for the work and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
But Washington? Really? I think you neglect to separate the "idea" of Washington from the man himself. I think your analysis of Washington is spot on, but I don't think he actually DID anything remarkable as president. He was the great symbol, the great patriarch when we needed one, but that was as a result of his reputation as a war hero. No that he should have done anything differently. The fact is that he really DIDN'T have to do anything. In some ways his was the easiest presidency. His job was to be a symbol to keep the fledgling union together.
Had Washington been, say the 3rd President of the US, and done the exact same things would you have ranked him so high?
I tend to agree with Poly. Lincoln, for my money, is number one. He faced the largest challenges of any president before or since and handled them (mostly) with honor, intelligence, and humility.
I appreciate the comments throughout this list. It was fun writing it and I always looked forward to commentary/critiques.
As for my Washington choice, I can only reiterate and emphasize what I said in the post. Yes, he was crucial as a symbol to keep this nation together, but Pocky and ANCIANT, that is precisely why he was so great. That he had more power than any other president because of who he was and when he served, and he COULD have done almost anything he wanted with it, and if you look at other "great leaders" of the time, they generally tried to follow Napolean Bonaparte's path. Washington not only preserved the infant nation, he preserved the delicate democratic experiment that had not been tried anywhere else (at least in this form). I mean, there were NO precedents to follow and he could have made himself king/dictator. But he did not.
Pocky, asking me to take that away from Washington's analysis and just pretend he was the 3rd president and analyze his other accomplishments is like me asking you, "setting aside how he handled the Civil War, why else was Lincoln so great?"
The very fact that this nation in this form may not have made it past its first decade BUT FOR this man, how do you rank anyone higher than him?
Dez, no one's going to argue that Washington wasn't a great man. He was. He was also a great president. The issue is, was Lincoln greater? Setting aside that the question is, in every way, unanswerable, let me ask you this. If the roles were reversed, and Lincoln was our first president, and Washington our 16th--if each had faced the exact same challenges the other man confronted--who would have fared the best? My feeling is, Lincoln would have done just as well in Washington's spot but Washington might have had problems. I have no actual evidence to support this claim (how could I?) But I make it, nevertheless. Because THAT is how I roll.
Also, going one step further with ANCIANT's question...if Lincoln was our first president, and Washington was our 16th, would both men be so disoriented by their apparent time travel that they were completely unable to function as president in the first place? And, would this cause John Adams to then take the top spot on your list, simply because of everything that he had to deal with after the term of the completely insane Lincoln who had served before him?
I'm disoriented after trying to follow Walter Evans's comment.
"My feeling is, Lincoln would have done just as well in Washington's spot but Washington might have had problems."
I completely agree. Lincoln was more "active" in his role as president while Washington was not. I don't think Washington could have handled the crisis with the same dexterity as Lincoln. Not to say he would have handled it poorly.
Walter, your question is Moot since Lincoln would have been jumped within 5 minutes of arriving in 1789 and Washington would have been called a "fag" in 1861 and would have run away in shame. So please don't ask such silly questions when the answer is obvious
My one problem with ranking presidents is that the ones that always stick out are the ones who typically are associated with War - Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan (Granada). However, it would be an interesting analysis if you took the war variable out and looked at them based on domestic policy and non combative foreign policy. Unfortunately for foreign policy/international conflict, there are fewer politics involved, the goal is much clearer and the feedback from your decisions are much more tangible immediate.
Take out war, and would Jefferson be higher? Teddy Roosevelt? Coolidge?
Would FDR be ranked lower? I think absolutely. Washington would be too. Wilson? That is a tough one
I guess I don't see the point in trying to take out elements of a president's term when analyzing them. Few events are more significant historically than wars, so why would it be "interesting" to pretend they did not happen when trying to judge a president's term?
And Washington's administration was not associated with a war, Pocky. He was a war hero, of course, but his term was over a decade after the Revolution. And war does not automatically mean favorable historical assessment. Lyndon Johnson would be viewed much more favorably but for Vietnam.
"We have learned well the lessons of the Vietnam War...stay out of Vietnam."
It is interesting to hold them out as they typically are more straight forward than domestic policy or actual diplomacy. Fighting is easy.
Yes, Washington was involved in a war during his presidency, but he was the "war hero"
Post a Comment